CO885-(13-15) — Page 647

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

EPER C.O. 885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO |

2

That it was understood that, irrespective of the terms of the correspondence and agreement, the Adiniralty contended that they were altogether exempt from the provisions of a local Ordinance, such as Ordinance X. of 1886, and that though no such exemption was specified in the law, it must be taken to be implied on the general principle that one department of Her Majesty's Government was not subject to the interference, within its own premises, of any other.

That it should be added that as one of the results of a conference recently held between the Admiralty and the Colonial Office, an arrangement would probably be made which would obviate those difficulties in the future, the Malta Government being prepared to withdraw its claim of access to the Admiralty premises except for the purpose of reading meters, and to remove its trunk mains beyond the contemplated extension of the dockyard, so that the supply of water might be regulated, in future, outsile the boundary.

That both the Admiralty and the Malta Government, however, were anxious to ascertain what were their mutual rights and obligations in law, and that Mr. Bertram Cox was to request that we would take the papers into our consideration and favour you with our opinion on the following points :-

(1.) Whether the Admiralty were bound by the provisions of Ordinance X. of 1886, although they were not specially exempted from the operation of the law ?.

(2.) Whether the Admiralty premises at Malta were a "tenement" under sections 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the Ordinange?

(3.) Whether the Malta Government by its undertaking of the 9th June, 1888, gave up any right of access to the Admiralty premises it might have possessed under the Ordinance, and was thus debarred from entering the dockyard, except by permission of the Admiralty officials, as from the date of that undertaking ?

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report—

(1.) That the Admiralty are not bound by Ordinance X. of 1886. Crown property is not mentioned, and the terms of the Ordinance seem to us to exclude the idea that it applies to the dockyard.

(2.) No.

(3.) We think that the Agreement of 9th June, 1888, would deprive the Govern- ment of any such right if it had existed.

The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.l'.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

1

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

26879.

SIR,

No. 229.

(SOUTH AFRICA.) –

LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.

K

Royal Courts of Justice,

October 4, 1899. WE were honoured with your commands signified in Sir Edward Wingfield's letter of the 14th ultimo, stating that with reference to our Report of the 27th June last,* as to the action of the Government of the South African Republic in relation to a concession held by the Consolidated Swazi Concessions Company to import explosives into Swaziland, he was directed by you to transmit to us two despatches, dated 17th and 29th May respectively, from the High Commissioner for South Africa with their enclosures, from the latter of which it would be seen that the Consolidated Swazi Concessions Company, Limited, represented that the Government of the South African Republic had infringed the rights obtained by the Company by virtue of another Concession held by them, a copy of which (marked B) they enclosed, and which conferred (inter alia) the sole right to import into Swaziland firearms and accoutrements.

That by a Proclamation made by the Government of the South African Republic dated April 28th, 1899, a copy of which, in Dutch, accompanied Sir A. Milner's despatch of 29th May, it was prohibited to import into Swaziland any firearms without a certificate from the Commandant-General, and a tax of ten shillings per barrel was made leviable upon all imported firearms. That no translation of this "Proclamation was forthcoming; but that a full summary of it was contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of an opinion by Dr. Farelly enclosed in Sir A. Milner's despatch of 29th May.

That from the enclosures to Sir A. Milner's despatch of 17th May, it would be seen that the Government of the South African Republic contended that no infraction of the exclusive right of importation belonging to the concessionaires was involved by the Proclamation referred to, and further that the Government had the right to levy a duty on importation as no right of free importation was granted by the Concession.

That Sir Edward Wingfield was to request us to take these papers into our consider- ation, and to favour you with our opinion :-

1. Whether the action of the Government of the South African Republic was an infringement of the rights of the Consolidated Swazi Concessions Company under the Concession in question.

2. What was the proper construction of the Concession, and what were the rights properly belonging to the concessionaires under it.

3. Whether the action of the Government of the South African Republic constituted a breach of of Article VII, or of any other Article of the Convention of December 10th, 1894, between this Country and the South African Republic with regard to the administration of Swaziland.

4. Whether the circumstances were such as to entitle Her Majesty's Government to make diplomatic representation to the Government of the South African Republic on behalf of the concessionaires, and if so, on what ground, or whether the concessionaires should be left to take such steps as they might be advised to enforce their claims against the Government of the South African Republic in the Courts of Swaziland.

We have taken the papers submitted to us into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to

Report,-

THAT the observations made in our answers to questions 3 and 4 in our Report of 27th June, 1899,* are applicable to the present case.

1. We think that the requiring of a certificate is not in itself a breach of the Concession. It might in practice constitute a breach, if used otherwise than in the interests of the public safety, as pointed out in our previous Report.

1

302-25-10.99 W↑ 139 D&S

• No. 216.